/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15847832
The guided space craft, among other EXPERIMENTS, is what verified the theories, not your faith in physics models.
And if hypothetically present physics models failed to guide the crafts accurately, we would have known physics is somehow different and would have needed to adjust said models.
This would be science and this is only possible when actual EXPERIMENTS could have been conducted, like guiding a spacecraft.
Modern cosmology on the other hand is extrapolating present physics onto literal still images that are so far removed from possible experiments it's sci-fi.
It could be completely correct or it could be complete horseshit, we'll never know, because I don't have an alien spaceship and neither do you.
>>15847882
>predictions
Predicting what, how graphics might change when you zoom in the resolutions on your still images?
Everybody and their grandmother knows nature follow geometric patterns. Just because you can predict said patterns does not automatically mean you actually know what those things you are looking at are.